FANDOM


Placeholder other This is an archive of User talk:Fandyllic.
  • Please do not edit this page!
  • If needed, direct any comments to the current talk page.


WelcomeEdit

Hi, welcome to Downton Abbey Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Patrick Crawley page.

If you need help, and there are no local admins here, you may want to visit the forums on the Community Central Wiki. Looking for live help? Then join us for an upcoming webinar to chat with staff and other Wikia editors. You can also check our Staff blog to keep up-to-date with the latest news and events around Wikia.

Happy editing, LexiLexi@fandom (help forum | blog)

AdminEdit

I really just randomly edit here and there so thanks for the compliment. It's very nice of you and I honestly appreciate it. I am not an admin of any other Wikia project. Unsure exactly that is? CestWhat 02:08, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

CrowboroughEdit

Why would there not be a Duke of Crowborough? There are Dukes of Marlborough and Marlborough is an even small town. CestWhat 02:08, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

True, the granting of peerages could be pretty arbitrary, but Marlborough has alot more going on than Crowborough. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Mar 2012 7:29 PM Pacific

==Pictures for the home page?==
Wouldn't Dr. Richard Clarkson belong with the middle class pictures on the home page? -- CocoaZen 00:04, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Do you think Clarkson should be added to the main page? "The Middle" section is pretty scant. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Mar 2012 7:29 PM Pacific

==Block==
I would like CestWhat blocked; over the last two days he/she has removed lots of canon information and everytime I re-add the information (which has been confirmed on the show/can be worked out from people's words) he/she keeps re-removing it.

I would kindly liked him/her blocked FOREVER/INDEFINITELY. Thank you HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:39, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

  • I disagree. User using assumptions and lack of understanding of genealogy and title inheritance as well as this being a television series where information changed (Rosamund originally suppose to have two children in the press kit released before the final episodes of S1 were filmed, but now Rosamund is childress on-screen). Tried to explain, but User either ignores, disregards or changes rational (i.e. "Robert's died in 1898 because press kit stated it" changed to "it's implied" when press kit had no such information in it). I could go into more detail, but I'm just trying to have a good Wiki for fans, both new and old, to DA.CestWhat (talk) 04:44, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not an admin so asking me to block someone is irrelevant. However, I have encouraged CestWhat to adopt this wiki and support CestWhat's position. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2 Sep 2012 9:08 PM Pacific
:If he/she adopts this wiki, then I am leaving this wiki. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 15:06, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, you could try to adopt it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3 Sep 2012 8:50 AM Pacific
::::Who does one adopt a Wiki anyhow?CestWhat (talk) 17:32, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
:I have tried to adopt this wiki, but have no reply yet. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:27, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
:::Adoption requests. You both seem to already know about it. You should try to settle your differences, otherwise neither of you is likely to be able to adopt this wiki. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4 Sep 2012 6:46 AM Pacific
:I am willing to put aside the differences as long as CestWhat is willing to STOP removing confirmed and known canon information which is WHY the arguments started in the first place. All of the pages were fine until he/she (I don't know his/her gender) came along and ALTERED them all, by removing canon information.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:17, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
* This thing that we don't agree on "cannon" and "confirmed" information (i.e. the source of Violet's year of birth is a twitter account that isn't affilated with anything and Martha Levinson's year of birth is based on "looking around the same age as Violet"). Or just making up stuff like the press package for Series 1 mentioning Robert and Rosamund's father's first name as Patrick when it's nowhere in it. I could go through each and every edit, but don't want to bore you even more with this nonsense. Tried in good faith to explain CestWhat (talk) 23:11, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
Well you'll have to settle it somehow. By the way, it's "canon". HarryPotterRules1 has good intentions, but is a little loose on what a good citation is. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5 Sep 2012 10:00 AM Pacific
:::Fandyllic: In the 2011 Christmas Special Violet says that the vase Matthew broke was a wedding present and that she had hated it for half a century; this places her marriage to Patrick in 1969 (as it is half a century before 1919), and places Patrick's death in 1899, as Violet says "'I did not run Downton for 30 years to see it go, lock, stock and barrel, to a stranger from God knows where!"; since they were married in 1869, this confirms his death was in 1899. Agreed? Last time I added this to the page, with this EXACT REFERENCE, CestWhat removed it, that is why I disagree with him/her becoming admin; well known confirmed canon information is removed by him/her all the time.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 05:30, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
::::Very thorough, but your reasoning has an initial flaw. Just because Violet says "half a century" does not mean definitively 50 years. It could mean 48 or 52 or 46 or 54. You need to understand the difference between interpretation and direct evidence. If you need to interpret a fact, it becomes much less of a fact.
::::Give me another example. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 18 Oct 2012 9:53 AM Pacific
Violet is thorough with dates; she said Robert married Cora "twenty four years ago"; she's not rounding there, so why would she round off the years she was in charge? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:10, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
Again, this is your interpretation ("Violet is thorough with dates"). Now if you found an article of some sort that basically agreed with you that she meant exactly 50 years, then that would be a proper citation. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 18 Oct 2012 12:20 PM Pacific

==Admin==
Hello. I requested that the higher-ups at Wiki make me an admin and just needed some other contributors to support it. Just wondering if you wouldn't mind adding your name?User_blog:CestWhat/Admin_request CestWhat (talk) 13:02, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

==Support==
I've written up my case again for being admin. Does that mean you'll lend me your support? CestWhat (talk) 18:48, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering if you were going to vote on the Admin question? CestWhat (talk) 04:09, October 17, 2012 (UTC)


I will eventually. I'm hoping for more feedback. Even if you or HarryPotterRules1 gets more votes, this wiki will never run smoothly until you two can figure out how to get along. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 19 Oct 2012 4:06 PM Pacific
::::I'm too annoyed with CestWhat at the moment to actually share secrets/information/important things with him/her, but I will be civil, but that is IT. Until I get apologies for things he/she removed that I have now proved to be canon, I will never be anything but civil. Apology... or nothing. That is the only compromise I am willing to make at the moment. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:54, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Temporary Bureaucrat Power? Edit

Hi Fandyllic. Given the ongoing arguments between CestWhat and Harry Potter Rules, I am unwilling to grant admin rights to either one at this time. The Forum:Adminship does not seem to have attracted input from very many of the users here, even though Special:ListUsers shows quite a few recent contributors. I feel that there is no "right answer" at the moment.

Given your experience on other wikis and evident interest in this one, I was wondering if you would like to step up and be a temporary bureaucrat here. Once the situation is more stable, and perhaps some basic community guidelines on acceptable sources for articles have been established, you could help the community choose a more permanent wiki leadership team that the entire community can agree about. -- Wendy (talk)@fandom 23:28, October 19, 2012 (UTC)


I'm too annoyed with CestWhat at the moment to actually share secrets/information/important things with him/her, but I will be civil, but that is IT. Until I get apologies for things he/she removed that I have now proved to be canon, I will never be anything but civil. Apology... or nothing. That is the only compromise I am willing to make at the moment. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:54, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Fandyllic you are now temporary bureaucrat :). I understand about Wowwiki, and appreciate that you are willing to invest some time here as well. I will reiterate that it seems worth looking at the other contributors here to see if any might be more neutral, and yes, agreeing to some basic rules would be an excellent first step. Let me know if I can help out with anything! -- Wendy (talk)@fandom 01:15, October 20, 2012 (UTC)


HarryPotterRuels1 - I'm glad you want to be civil; but I think that is a good goal for any interaction on a wiki and should be basic behavior, not a compromise. It is certainly good for anybody who wishes to be an admin. Wikis mean finding a way to work together with people, even when you disagree. -- Wendy (talk)@fandom 01:15, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
:Do we have to go over again that this isn't cannon information by stretch that I removed. In fact, User:HarryPotterRules has removed cannon information (i.e. Matthew saying that his great-great grandfather was a younger son of the 3rd Earl). To rehash this a bit, I disagree with the facts HPR wrote, he ignored anything showing why this information wasn't accurate and then asked User:Fandyllic to block to me. Rather then just "I shouldn't be block, but block User:HarryPotterRules" or get upset at the contributor, I just pointed again why the information (who is Great Aunt Roberta, relationship between the Earls of Granthams, etc...) was inaccurate. If there was a better way to do this, I'm all ears, but I really don't know to deal with a contributor is adding inaccurate information (or at least unconfirmed information) and unwilling to listen when this is explained without personal attacks. CestWhat (talk) 22:41, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
: Read this message (http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:CestWhat#Matthew.27s_descent_from_Second_Earl_of_Grantham.) I got from User:HarryPotterRules after the Series 3 premiere episode. It's incredibly negative and personal. We disagreed about how the Earls of Granthams are related to each other. HPR maintains that it must be from father to son each time and I pointed out that we don't know since it would be any other possible rather (the 2nd Ear is the brother/grandson/nephew/first cousin/whatever of the 1st Earl). I didn't use any personal attacks or insult HPR (which I certainly got), but then on the premiere I got that message and then I watched the episode and HPR wasn't even accurate. HRP told me that Matthew said his great-great grandfather was a younger son of the 2nd Earl (which would fit into each time a father to son inheritance of the Earldom), but Matthew didn't even say that (his great-great grandfather was the younger of the 3rd Earl). I pointed this out (without any mention of the mean message I got or making it personal about us), and User:HarryPotterRules told me that the show was wrong. Again, I didn't make it personal, but I do find it hard to "work things out" when the information in the show itself is ignore to help prove me wrong in HPR's mind. What was I suppose to do? CestWhat (talk) 23:09, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
Well, given that, as far as we knew, it went father to son, as Earldoms/Dukedoms and Viscounts tend to do, it would have been First Earl, Second Earl, Third Earl, Fourth Earl, Patrick, Robert, which WOULD make Matthew's comment wrong: Now, of course, we know that the child of either the third earl or the fourth earl had to have died before becoming Earl, so that the CORRECT relationship between Matthew and Robert could be created on their Family Tree.
: As for removing Canon information, I can safely say that you did. On The page of "Susan MacClare, Marchioness of Flintshire." I wrote that Susan visited Downton at least once, which we KNOW she did. (The Dowager herself says "I wondered about that, well, obviously she's forgotten the distance between the girls's rooms and the bachelors corridor" meaning that Susan DID come to Downton. You of course, in your high-handed arrogance, removed it under the "I know best" perogative. Trust me, you are ANYTHING but innocent, man/woman (can someone PLEASE tell me your gender?!) As for what you were supposed to do, well. Play the episode with subtitles on, take a PICTURE and upload it as proof. That would have worked. K? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:15, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

ThreatenEdit

Beyond the speculative "source" for 1889, I have been threaten by another user in a way I have never even come close to doing. "I will hurt you." is very upsetting to me. http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/Hugh_MacClare,_Marquess_of_Flintshire?diff=14386&oldid=14381 CestWhat (talk) 02:48, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
:Still upset on this, but if User:HPR is going to be a [fill in the blank], I'll alive, although it's distressing. User:HPR is making this all about me and wish put that energy into explaining the bad edits. It's scary that User:HPR isn't realizing how wrong threatening to hurt people that bugs them over edits. CestWhat (talk) 03:54, October 29, 2012 (UTC)
It is usually about you: I do not mind you removing edits that are wrong - but on several occasions you have removed canon information: threatening you seems to be the only way that worked - since the canon information, now discussed between me and Seth Cooper, is still there. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 14:47, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
:I was shocked and near tears when I read that threat, but was willing to let it go, but seriously STOP IT! I know User:Fandyllic doesn't like to take sides or ignore one side over the other (I appreciated that during the first time User:HPR demanded I be permantly blocked from contributing), but I am asking you to step up here for a least a temporary block for 2 or 3 days to get across that treats are not the answer. It's only fair at this point when I am being blamed for a treat made against me. CestWhat (talk) 16:48, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
I do understand that threats are not the answer - but so far I've been unable to come to an agreement with you since YOU are not prepared to compromise with me either - so threatening you WAS the only way to get the information to stay there. And, given that the information still remains - and the evidence behind the information is on the wall of either me or Seth Cooper - it has, evidently, worked. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:56, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
:HarryPotterRules1, you just don't get it. Threats are never the answer. If you think I can even begin to support anything you propose before you apologize, you are dead wrong. Keep that in mind. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 7:29 AM Pacific

I will keep it in mind, but now see it from MY point of view. I discuss something with Seth (it's on either my talk page or his) and we come to an agreement that we should state in the article that Patrick died between 1899 and 1912, but the ABSOLUTE date is unknown - and we also agreed that the whole "married for thirty years" thing should be there too. As well as this, the information about Susan visiting - which is where the threat began - was discussed and agreed. This is fine - Seth and I have come to an agreement: I add it to the article. MINUTES (AND I MEAN MINUTES!) later, CestWhat has removed it, claiming it's wrong, WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS ON ONE OF THE PAGES OF THE PEOPLE WHO DISCUSSED IT. THREE TIMES I told CestWhat about that, but it was still removed. So, the ONLY other option (as rational discussion where I direct CestWhat to a page with evidence has failed) is to threaten. It worked, the evidence is still there. I KNOW that it was wrong - but there were no other options other than an edit war starting, which was something nobody on the wiki needed again. So, threatening was the last option I'd been reduced to. I DID ask for CestWhat to be blocked, so that the evidence couldn't be removed, but you did nothing. Thus, the threat had to happen to keep the information there. That, as thus explained, keeps me in the "innocent and having to defend my edits which had been agreed on with A major important editor on this site" category and places CestWhat in the "I am a troll who removes Edits" category. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:17, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Getting Seth to agree does not solve anything. Seth is no more an authority than you. I do see CestWhat's over-zealous propensity to remove content and will issue a warning. But you will need to apologize first, despite your belief that you need to stand your ground and wait for CestWhat's apology. This is my condition as current acting admin and will go along way to you proving you are willing to negotiate and move beyond the belief that threats work.

It is up to you to decide. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 1:57 PM Pacific

I do not believe threats work ALL the time - just when neccessary after there are no remaining options (given that I showed valid references, a discussion page and wished for the perpetrator to be blocked so that an Edit war could be avoided) left that can be acted on. In this case, there were none. At the time, you were not an admin, and the WIKI COMMUNITY people weren't helping, so we had no way, apart from me threatening, since I was not willing to compromise on KNOWN CANON INFORMATION and allow CestWhat to get away with removing it and ruining the wiki. Given that nothing was done, and he/she still removed it several times, and threat was the option I was left with. Next time, maybe if someone would honor my request to block said editor, this could be avoided. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:32, November 1, 2012 (UTC)
I guess you'd rather be banned than apologize. I'll give you a couple days before I act. Please study the idea of canon. You obviously don't understand what it is. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 2:37 PM Pacific
:Canon Information: Information that is outright stated on the show/in the book (if we refer to literature); information that is confirmed by WORDOFGOD (e.g. Dumbledore being gay revealed by J.K. Rowling despite not being mentioned in the books AT ALL); information released in side articles (e.g. press packs). Trust me, I do know what it is. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:54, November 1, 2012 (UTC)
Then you also know that circuitous chains of reasoning from canon sources does not make the conclusion canon. However, you have repeatedly acted as if derived info is canon. It is not and you have not used original sources for your references. The whole reason for canon is that we don't need to trust you, but for what you use as "canon" we do, so it isn't. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 3:18 PM Pacific

DeleteEdit

Hi, any way to delete this useless article http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/Bertie_schnell CestWhat (talk) 23:27, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Oct 2012 3:31 PM Pacific

==Roberta again==
Article to delete: Mr Gordon

When Maj. Gordon arrives at Downton Abbey, he claims to be related and have a connection to the house. Edith tells him about an aunt in 1860s who married a Gordon. Again the same situation where HarryPotterRules insists that must be Roberta and therefore types it into the article as fact even if there is nothing even close that proves this is true. CestWhat (talk) 03:52, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

Not going to delete Roberta Gordon or Mr Gordon, but put an ominous {{Accuracy}} tag at the top of each and moved non-refs to Notes sections. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Oct 2012 12:53 PM Pacific
Thank you, Fandyllic.
I changed Roberta to Roberta Gordon because Edith notes that her father discovered "a great aunt in the 1860s" correct? Correct. We know Robert has one aunt - James Crawley's mother - so the only other great-aunt that could possibly be the woman who "married a Gordon" is the sister that Violet mentions - namely Roberta. Speaking of which, I have a question about her article. The article says that she "loaded the guns" for the East India Company - but we only know she loaded the guns, we do not know if it was for the English. Should that be removed? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:11, October 29, 2012 (UTC)
Why you changed it is never the answer we need. We need to know if the "why" is supported by primary sources, which it often is not. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 30 Oct 2012 9:57 AM Pacific
In fitting with User:HPR's pattern, there is a misrepresentation going on here. User:HPR claims to be discussing this with User:Seth_Cooper implying support. While User:HPR has written on his wall, User:SC hasn't responded let alone agreed. I would that note a month ago, when I was discussing this and every other specific issue I had, User:AvatarRokusGhost supported me and I quote, "Yes, you have a point regarding all of this. Regarding canon information, we should go with what's confirmed, not speculation about what's likely." I get that adding "possibly" or "perhaps" seems like a compromise, but User:HPR or any other contributors has so many avenues for speculation (the comment section, the blogging forum, fanfic websites), that we ought to keep the articles themselves are must sticking to sourced material. I would note that I noticed this was then I was reading Robert's entry and a comment about how did we get 1869 as his year and the flimsy response of "it fits." The real compromise would be for User:HRP and myself and others who have speculative and "it fits"-type information to have it the comment section rather then the article itself.CestWhat (talk) 17:07, October 30, 2012 (UTC)


If you two could compromise on anything, that would be a major victory. My preference is to either put speculation in a "Speculation" section (I'll make a section template for it) if the speculation is based on piecing together vague statements in the show, put it in a "Notes" section if there is some trail of evidence to support it, or in Comments if it is merely musing by a viewer with little or no evidence at all to support it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 30 Oct 2012 9:57 AM Pacific
:I have stated before that once CestWhat apologises for removing information that has now been agreed on - e.g. Violet's husband dying between 1899 and 1911 - then I will compromise with him/her: until then, as far as I am concerned, he/she is nothing more than an insignificant little ass to me. K? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:52, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
:Will you apologize for threatening CestWhat? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 7:27 AM Pacific
::When I've had my apology, yes, but not even so much as 1/6,0000000000000th of a second before. That is my ONE condition. I've been waiting for that apology for WEEKS - once I have it, I'll apologise. —This unsigned comment is by HarryPotterRules1 (talkcontribs) 14:11, November 1, 2012‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
:::Well, you may never get your apology, because if I were CestWhat, I would not apologize. You made a threat. CestWhat just changed some content. This all further demonstrates your inability to understand the difference between the two acts. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 1:27 PM Pacific
::As I've explained before: I shall apologise (I do not mind doing so) once CestWhat apologises for removing the information - even after the best way to write it since ABSOLUTE DATES were not given and the closest possible dates had been discussed. Given that it was CestWhat's constant "Oh, it was written by him, it MUST be wrong." attitude that started this, there will be no apology from me until I've had mine. I WILL apologise, once I've received HIS, but not before. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:40, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Time to play Edit

Hey, I tried to start a quick conversation about time to play via a blog, and was just trying to make sure people on the wiki here saw it and had the chance to participate if they were interested. I'd love it if you could help drum up some conversation around it. I think this is a great show, and a great wiki, so I wanted to make sure you guys were added to the list if you wanted to be. you can see my blog here: http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Xean/It%27s_Time_To_Play thanks for your help with this, I hope you guys decide to participate :D Sena@fandom 00:21, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

==Apology Done.==
My apology is done. I shall be expecting CestWhat's apology soon. If I do not get one, then I shall be retracting mine - PERMANENTLY, as I do deserve an apology. I know I was in the wrong, but you yourself have said that CestWhat will have to apologise, for they were not entirely in the right either.

Hope I receive an apology soon, so that this wiki can come back up to scratch. Thank you. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:44, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
==Help please?==

Hello, I'm not sure where to ask for help so I hope this is the right place. I'm having a little difficulty in a discussion in the comments on this page: http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/Crawley_family And I wondered where you go when you seem to have reached an impass with someone? Who finally decidedes on an issue? Becaue I'm finding it hard to continue discussing it when the other user seems incapable of bending the least little bit. I'm more than willing to admit if I'm wrong, but some back up would be nice if I'm correct in my arguments. I hope this doesn't seem petty, and thanks for your time. Bluebellanon (talk) 22:39, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

As I have proven Robert DOES know his own family - he knew Matthew was the next heir after James and Patrick, knew that Reginald, his third cousin was a Doctor - and I have linked the page that shows where I got the REFORMATION information from. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:56, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
This wiki IS NOT AN INFO DUMP. HarryPotterRules1 is wrong. If it is not clearly directly related to Downton Abbey, it doesn't belong. I will edit the page accordingly and add a comment. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 15 Nov 2012 3:11 PM Pacific
:I never said THIS WIKI is an info dump - I said the SITE I GOT THE INFORMATION AOUT THE REFORMATION FROM was an info dump. READ STUFF RIGHT PLEASE! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:12, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
And you dumped it into this wiki even though it only had relevance due to a strained inference. See how I edited the page to get an idea of how you should go about your changes.
::You do know you're riding a fine line, so try adapt some perspective besides your own. You're very lucky to not already be banned and I challenge you to find any Wikia user who disagrees. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 15 Nov 2012 3:24 PM Pacific
:It had reference because, as you've stated, there's an ANTI CATHOLIC bit (meaning that NONE of them after Catholic) and Robert EXPLICITELY state that there has NOT been a Catholic Crawley since the reformation; 1648 is the end of the reformation, so EVERY SINGLE CRAWLEY SINCE 1648 IS PROTESTANT - AS I WROTE IN THE ARTICLE. I use VALID and KNOWN information (as the show says it) and still someone's goes freaking ape-shit! Is there NO POSSIBLE WAY TO WIN WITH YOU PEOPLE?! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:28, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
You don't get it. You are not a source. No one who says they watched the show and meticulously noted every bit of dialogue (but never published their notes anywhere for someone to check) is not a source. You can say that you're using what the character Robert Crawley said in the show as a reference, but without some citation to a published work, IT IS NOT A REFERENCE! Please go read my forum post again. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 15 Nov 2012 3:36 PM Pacific
:The show states it (Robert said it) and Jullian Fellowes said it and WROTE THE SHOW - so it's WORDOFGOD and canon - which means it belongs.
:I have read your forum. You say "This includes the transcripts of the Downton Abbey show" - this episode, when TRANSCRIPTED, will have that line in, so THAT LINE IS CANON which is why I ADDED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! SEE?! You people just hate me, and I am sure, now, that it is just biased. I haven't even received an apology from CestWhat (which CestWhat said I would get) and it's been nearly 2 weeks! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:40, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
But what you're not taking into account is that your interpretation of the show/dialogue is not canon. You take that line to be 100% accurate and derive dates from it, but that isn't canon - that's just your interpretation of it. Robert could be exagerating (or just plain wrong or lying even) or he could be correct - we don't know. Bluebellanon (talk) 23:46, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
:Oh, and I meant to say - thanks so much for your help with this Fandyllic - I really appreciate it. Bluebellanon (talk) 23:49, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
True, but Jullian Fellowes has stated that is an ANTI-CATHOLIC vibe to the Crawleys, meaning that NONE OF THEM could have been Catholic, which backs up Robert's comment of there not being single Catholic Crawley since the Reformation, see? Also, completely off topic, but could you, Fandyllic check out the page I made: it's http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/Cousin_Freddie; is it ok? Have I got the notes bit right? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:51, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
:I too appreciate the help to other people - even if it IS mostly biased and against me - for it's being a good admin. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:51, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

== Changing Heading on Page? ==
It was assumed by some contributors that Robert's father's name was Patrick; HarryPotterRules1 said s/he got the m=name from these lines in Violet's bio in the Series 1 press pack: "Publicly, Violet supports the arrangements made by her late husband. But in reality, once Patrick is dead, she favours her granddaughter Mary over some distant stranger." I can see how people would think that Patrick was the name of the 6th Earl, but a more careful reading show that the quoted section actually refers to James' son and Mary's fiance, which leaves Violet's husband's name unknown. Should the page be renamed to "6th Earl of Grantham" until the prequel series(if Fellowes goes ahead with it) gives a solid answer as to his name? —This unsigned comment is by Dragonrider2 (talkcontribs) 15:10, November 16, 2012‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Without seeing the actual text of the press pack, I can't comment, but also it would help if I knew the specific article you are referring to. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 16 Nov 2012 3:15 PM Pacific
http://www.itv.com/documents/pdf/DOWNTON_ABBEY_PRESS_PACK.pdf This is a working link to the press pack. Violet's bio is at the very top of page 7, so you can read it for yourself. And the page I'm asking about changing is "Patrick Crawley, 6th Earl of Grantham" Dragonrider2 (talk) 23:20, November 16, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, reading the line "But in reality, once Patrick is dead, she favours her grand daughter, Mary, over some distant stranger." The "Patrick" that Violet refers to is clearly Robert's second cousin Patrick, son of his cousin James Crawley (see Page 5) and not his father. I would rewrite the article that suggests Robert's father is named Patrick if it were based on the press pack.
::I will upload the press pack to the wiki, but in the mean time you can use the following wiki code (need to use Source mode of the editor) to add any references:
:::Use for first ref: <ref name="itvDowntonPressPackPg7">ITV.com [http://www.itv.com/documents/pdf/DOWNTON_ABBEY_PRESS_PACK.pdf ''Downton Abbey Press Pack''] (PDF), Page 7</ref>
:::Later refs: <ref name="itvDowntonPressPackPg7" />
:::If you refer a different page number other than 7, change the 7's to the page number. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 17 Nov 2012 9:14 AM Pacific

Not sure if this helps or not, but with you talking about uploading the series 1 press pack I thought I'd mention it. Series 2 press pack is here: http://www.itv.com/documents/pdf/DOWNTON_ABBEY.pdf and there's a link to the series 3 press pack on this page: http://www.itv.com/presscentre/presspacks/downtonabbey/default.html . Wasn't sure if this is helpful to anyone or not, but thought I'd leave you the links in case it is! :) Bluebellanon (talk) 19:23, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

==Forum for Show Timeline?==
I've been wondering lately if it might not by helpful to have a forum regarding the show timeline. Only a few of the epsiodes actually have title cards, and in some (though not all) of the others, it is obvious that there is a time jump either between or within episodes. The internal clues provided aren't always helpful and could lead to differences of opinion as to when a particular episode is set. Just a thought. Dragonrider2 (talk) 20:11, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with a FORUM: a PAGE, called "Timeline" is a good idea though. If Fandyllic wants, I'll set up a page called TIMELINE. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:57, November 17, 2012 (UTC)
:Either is fine. There could be a Timeline page, a timeline for each season, and a forum to discuss what should be in the timeline. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 17 Nov 2012 1:53 PM Pacific
I've started a Timeline page, but it's in the very rough stages right now. The information I've put in so far is from memory; I don't have time to do much else right now. Once I get some time to rewatch the episodes and take notes, though, I will add more. In the meantime, anyone who wants can feel free to add or correct what I've got. Dragonrider2 (talk) 01:55, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with something on the Timeline page - I don't think it should be "Episode 1.02" etc, but rather years e.g. "1912", "1913", and so on. That way, we can add stuff from the press pack - which states Cora and Robert years of marriage and Mrs Hughes age, etc. We can also add death dates and marriages them - it'll be a true timeline. Can I alter it, Fandyllic? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:35, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've got to disagree with HPR because I think the Timeline page would be best left in the form it is at the moment. If it's changed we'll be moving towards adding more speculative dates (births, deaths, marriages) rather than just trying to establish when the episodes take place based on information we see actually in the show. Also, the form that it's in now is - I think - what most people will be looking for from a Timeline. People will refer to it when they want to know when a particular episode/event in an episode took place. Knowing the dates of deaths and marriages is unimportant imo, it's the dates of things that occur in the show that people will want to know. Bluebellanon (talk) 20:39, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
We'll leave it for Fandyllic to decide, otherwise you and I will end up like CestWhat and I have - on non speaking terms. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:50, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I've offended you in some way, but why would we end up not speaking? I'd like to think I'm able to get along with people even when I have a difference of opinion with them. After all, we're only talking about changes made to a wiki that we both participate in for fun. It's not the end of the world if things aren't aranged exactly as I would wish them, and I hope other people feel the same. Otherwise it's not going to be much fun at all - nothing ever goes exactly as you would wish them to. Especially when you're taking part in a community like this where everyone gets a say. Bluebellanon (talk) 20:58, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
Oh, no, no. You misunderstand - no, you haven't offended me. I said leave it to Fandyllic because Cestwhat and I didn't and now we're not on speaking terms anymore; I don't want to end up that way with you as well. That was what I meant. You haven't offedned me in anyway, don't worry. But in this case, with Fandyllic being in the admin, it would be better to let him decide then we both have to accept his ruling. It's just easier that way. His ruling is, after all, as admin, law. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:04, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
HPR, what Bluebellanon said is what I was angling for in asking about a timeline page - trying to resonably determine the dates of the episodes. That's the reason what I set it up the way I did. If Fandyllic agrees, I would have no objection to sorting the timeline by year to add stuff from the PP and other official sources, but I think that should come later.
Now, I've got a question about 1.03. There seems to be some confusion about 1.03's date, with Wikipedia saying December 1912 and the 1.03 page here saying March 1913.
The dialogue from 1.03 makes it clear that Pamuk was in Britain for the Albanian talks, Turkey;'s signature is vital, and Cora invities both Napier and Pamuk up for the York and Ainsty Hunt. I did some searching on the Internet last night and today about the York and Ainsty. Today there are two hunts, York and Ainsty South and York and Ainsty North. According to the York and Ainsty North website's history page: http://www.yorkandainstynorthhunt.co.uk/#/history/4531352570, the hunt split into the present North and South Hunts in 1929, so in 1912 the two branches were still a single hunt. The website also says that hounds gather every Wednesday and Saturday from September to March, so I think it possible that the original York and Ainsty met at the same times.
The London Conference of 1912-1913 officially began in September 1912 with preliminary talks; further sessions started on December 16th and ended on January 23rd, 1913 when the Coup of 1913 took place. The Treaty of London was signed on May 30th.
In other words, either December or March could be plausible for 1.03. I'm more inclined to go with December 1912 since the continuing of the talks was apparently effective nulled by the coup, but I'd like to know what others think. Dragonrider2 (talk) 21:32, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
If wikipedia says that it was in December, then it was December, as the ones from Wikipedia are the OFFICIAL synopsis from ITV.com which shows the dates. That's how we KNOW Sybil died in Autumn 1920; it said so on ITV.com when the synopsis was released. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:46, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

==Delete please.==
Someone has made this page Mr. Patmore when Mrs Patmore is not actually married; she is merely a "Mrs" by courtesy. Could you remove it please? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:36, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Done. Maybe you could add a note that the "Mrs." is a matter of convention on the Beryl Patmore page. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 20 Nov 2012 3:02 PM Pacific

==Mr. Patmore==
If you were curious, found this off a Google search http://twitter.com/lesley_nicol/status/150248682846035969 CestWhat (talk) 23:08, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Mrs Patmore and Mrs Hughes are both unmarried: the "Mrs" is a courtsey title due to their jobs. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:20, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it is a form of managerial title, but it would be interesting to know how it came about. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 20 Nov 2012 5:21 PM Pacific
Found an interesting document at Working Papers in Economic and Social History at Cambridge U.'s web site. Mistresses and marriage: or, a short history of the Mrs (PDF) (or [1]) by Amy Louise Erickson. She says, "In the middle of the eighteenth century, 'Mrs' did not describe a married woman: it described a woman who governed subjects (i.e., employees or servants or apprentices) or a woman who was skilled or who taught." That seems to cover the issue. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 20 Nov 2012 5:33 PM Pacific

==Branson==
I may be clutching at straws here, but Branson's surname being an ENGLISH surname along with Tom's words of "My daughter is Irish and she'll be Catholic, like her father." that made me think of this.

We know Tom is Irish - and so is his brother judging by the accent - but is his father? Tom doesn't say that his parents are Irish, only that he and his daughter are Irish - and we know Kieran is - so could it be possible or am I just clutching at straws? Or maybe only is mother is Irish and his father is English? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:04, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

It's possible Tom Branson's father is not Irish by birth or that the family was originally not from Ireland, but without some supporting evidence beyond a name, it is pure speculation. Julian Fellowes probably had some reason for choosing the name "Branson" and knowing it was not an Irish name, but unless he or one of the show's creators/collaborators gives a hint as to why, we don't know.
:Please don't put this in the article about Tom Branson (or a speculative father article), but your thoughts are fine for a comment or a forum post. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 24 Nov 2012 6:15 PM Pacific
Oh, I'm not going to put it in the article; I just thought I'd ask. It just truck me as odd due to tom saying "like her father" instead of "like my family." HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:18, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
Well, I read "like her father" as in contrast to her mother, Sybil, who was almost certainly Anglican, which is no mystery. A single sentence really is poor context to draw anything more out of. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 24 Nov 2012 6:23 PM Pacific
::Yeah, I did say I was probably clutching at straws - it just intrigued me, that's all. Between you and me, do you think Mr Branson is dead? We never hear him mentions; cousins, siblings, mother, but not father. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:04, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Mr. Branson is dead. Perhaps his death is related to why Tom went to England to work. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 24 Nov 2012 8:08 PM Pacific
::I think Tom came over to work because Kieran, a drunken baboon, squandered any money he made - which was meant to be sent to the family - on beer, so Tom had to come over too. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:53, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

==A couple of questions.==
Hello. I hope it's okay that I ask you a couple of questions here? One thing I was wondering was if it might be useful to have a sandbox type page - where people can practice making edits - it might encourage new people to have a go and take part and give people a place where it's not important if you make mistakes at first. I think I've seen something like this at a different wiki but I could be wrong, so appologies if it's not a do-able idea.
I was also wondering if there was a set template or style we should be following when making/editing pages - is the prefered style to have it in different headings like this: Biography, Personality, Relationships, Quotes, Behind the Scenes and then References - or some are set out with a biography and then headings for each series - and yet some others have no seperate headings at all. Is it just up to whoever makes/edits the page what headings if any they use? If there isn't a suggested template/style to follow might it be helpful to have one? Bluebellanon (talk) 20:27, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

An excellent set of ideas. Making a sandbox page is easily done. Boilerplate pages are a bit more work, but I can start some. If you have time to work on some proposals for these types of pages that would be even better.
:I've been trying to slowly add infrastructure to this wiki, but I don't have a ton of time. However, I'll stub out some of the things you've mentioned. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Nov 2012 2:14 PM Pacific
Oh, cool, I'm glad you think so. :) I'm new so I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the term boilerplate. Would a post in the watercooler section be a good place to make a post about possible template/style to follow for making pages? That way it's open for everyone to make suggestions/improvements. Bluebellanon (talk) 22:27, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
Please do start a forum post about style guidelines or article templates to follow. On many wikis the term "boilerplate" is used for a template article with the details left out.
:::Sandbox is created, so please take a look. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Nov 2012 2:32 PM Pacific
I'll give that a think and make a forum post about it later then. I saw the sandbox! Thanks for that. :)
:::::Another thing I was just thinking about was whether it might be helpful to have a list of useful links/helpful info on the front page. For instance I only just found this page: http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/Downton_Abbey_Wiki:Community_Portal That could because I missed a really obvious link xD, but if not I more obvious link to it somewhere might be helpful? It seems like a page that would be helpful for new users. It could maybe also have a list of places to ask for help, a link to the sandox etc? Bluebellanon (talk) 22:56, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

==Duneagle Castle==
Until the Christmas Special broadcasts, should we use a picture of Inverary Castle (the filming location for Duneagle Castle) to add a picture onto the page, since it is, technically, Duneagle castle since that was where they filmed. Would this be alright, as Highclere Castle didn't change appearance in the show, so it's unlikely that Inverary Castle will too? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:51, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
:Do you mean "Inveraray Castle"? Otherwise, seems like an okay idea. If something changes, we can change the picture. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Nov 2012 2:59 PM Pacific
I did mean that, yes. I'll add in a picture. Thank you! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:51, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

==Mistake==
I've accidentally created a category called "ar" at this page: Albert C. and wasn't sure how to go about deleting it. Sorry about that! Not even sure how it happened! Bluebellanon (talk) 11:28, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

== Opinion please? ==
Hello, sorry to bother you again so soon. I'm having a little difference off opinion with HarryPotterRules1 about this page: Lady Agatha MacClare which they have edited from Lady Agatha to include a last name. I say the second name is only speculation at this point, not canon information. I don't want to start an edit war or anything and we're not getting anywhere with our disscussion so I thought a second opinion might be helpful. Thanks! Bluebellanon (talk) 01:23, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Page renamed to Lady Agatha and edited with MacClare moved to notes. It's not a matter of opinion. If you can't prove something, it should change to support that which is unproved. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Nov 2012 7:07 PM Pacific
:::Thank, I tried saying as much to HPR1, but I found them very hard to talk to. Bluebellanon (talk) 08:43, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

==Could you please look at this.==
The three reference links below show that the marriage age before 1829 is 16; could you read them for me, and answer the question as to whether this means that the 6th Earl of Grantham's birthdate, along with that of Violet's could not be any later than 1854 (since they'd have to be 16 to be married by January 1870 as Violet's words of hating the vase for "half a century" in January 1920 state)?

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/regscot/getting-married-in-scotland/what-was-and-is-the-minimum-age-for-marriage-in-scotland.html

http://www.weddings.co.uk/info/legeng.htm

http://www.weddings.co.uk/info/nirelang.htm

Thank you. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:08, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

You're getting better, but your reference is still derivative and not direct. Also, gro-scotland.gov.uk presumes she was married in Scotland (various "states" like Scotland and Wales may have different marital laws than England proper) and weddings.co.uk is a little suspect, since it isn't a government source.
:Lastly, this source from the UK Parliament says: "In 1929, in response to a campaign by the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship, Parliament raised the age limit to 16 for both sexes in the Ages of Marriage Act. This is still the minimum age." This implies that somewhere the age limit was lower than 16 prior to 1929 and most likely for women (because men have historically tried to marry girls as young as possible). -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Nov 2012 9:09 AM Pacific
I just picked the three reference links from wikipedia; I did know one was Scotland, but she DOES have Scottish relatives, so it's not ENTIRELY impossible. I'm glad I'm getting better. I was looking for "marriage age before 1929", which is where I found those references (as my search took me to wikipedia - and they were three reference links on there. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:01, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
It's okay not to have perfect references, if you note what you know is missing or speculative. However, a solid reference is likely to prevent the statement it supports from getting edited, rewritten, or removed. You clearly think alot about the various things you write down, you just to need to be more careful about putting stuff down as solidly supported facts when they are more like deduced information that has a good chance of being true, but rests on assumptions that will make the statement false if they are proven wrong.
:Just keep looking for better references and go back and improve them as much as possible. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Nov 2012 6:07 PM Pacific
Gotcha. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 07:28, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

== I have a question ==
In Episode 3.03, was the Crawley Family are getting into the cars to go to Edith's wedding, we can hear Robert say "He was a cousin of Granny's".

That line confused me. Does Robert mean that the person was "a cousin of his grandmother" or "a cousin of Violet's"? I want to be sure when I make the page. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:20, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

You would need to know who Robert speaking to at minimum. Without that info, there isn't enough context. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7 Dec 2012 1:41 PM Pacific
Note, it's not Edith's wedding, actually. It's the trip to "Downton Place". Matthew exits, followed by Mary, who invites Edith to go with them - Edith agrees; Robert then exits, putting on his hat, and Cora follows. Then Carson stops her to tell her about Mrs Hughes being ill.

Robert's exact words are "This is Banning: he was a cousin of Granny's."
The image of the scene is below:
12345533

So... it's Cora, I think, that he's speaking to. D'you think he means Violet or His (Robert's) grandmother? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:01, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Granny" be Violet? Especially, if as you say that Sir Anthony is taking "Granny and Isobel". Robert appears to be talking to either Edith or Mary or both. Either way, Granny to Edith and Mary would be Violet. So, "Banning" would be Violet's cousin. Unfortunately, we don't know if the cousin is named Banning Crawley or Something Banning, so that also remains a little ambiguous. Also, the problem here is that sometimes people refer to second cousins as cousins, so there is a chance that Banning is not a first cousin to Violet. However, if you noted these ambiguities, this scene as a reference would be ok. Again, a reference to a transcript would be best. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8 Dec 2012 2:17 PM Pacific
It's Something Banning; a cousin of Violet's would NOT be a Crawley; a cousin of Robert's father would be a Crawley (unless it's related through the 6th earl's mother, of course, but that's not up for discussion here.)
:Yes; Isobel goes with Violet and Anthony. Edith, Mary and Matthew go together, Cora and Robert go together, and presumably Tom and Sybil go with them.
:So, if I was to state that "Banning" may be a first or second cousin of Violet - and in turn, Roberta, who is Violet's (apparently elder) sister - it would be ok? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:43, December 9, 2012 (UTC)
Go for it. Mention the stuff that is uncertain in a "Notes" section. Yeah, I wasn't thinking too deeply about it, but Violet's cousin would likely not be a Crawley. Also, Banning is very unlikely to be a first name. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8 Dec 2012 4:53 PM Pacific
Is Banning ok? Yes, Banning is a HORRIBLE first name, and Violet's cousins would not be Crawleys. Check the page out, tell me if it's ok. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:03, December 9, 2012 (UTC)


Did some editing, but it looks good. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9 Dec 2012 11:45 AM Pacific
:That's good! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:28, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

==Cousin Freddie==
The "Cousin Freddie" mentioned in Episode 2 by Sybil; I want your opinion on a theory I have concerning him. I think he might be Rosamund's child - for these reasons. 1) in Episode 3.02 Mary says "There's only Mama and Uncle Harold to inherit it when she's gone"; if Freddie was Harold's son, Mary would have mentioned that Freddie would have inherited it after Harold. 2) Freddie is studying in Bath; Bath is in the UK - not America, which would make it highly impractical for someone from America to study there. As well as this, we know he's not staying at Downton, since Mary says they don't "have to eat with him", which they would if he was staying at Downton. As far as I am concerned (I won't add anything to the article unless I have your agreement) this makes Freddie Rosamund's son.

Your thoughts? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:57, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

You're missing a few things in your convoluted logic, but there is probably enough to hang a notes inclusion on. Again we have the cousin vs. second cousin issue. If Freddie were actually a close second cousin, then the possibilities of his parents could be much larger. However, as the only sibling of Robert known so far is Rosamund, any first cousins from that side would have to be Rosamund's children. Unfortunately, you have given no good evidence that Freddie is not American besides your case that he's supposed to be studying in Bath. Many American students came to study in England, especially the wealthy ones. For the wealthy, the impracticality is no more or less than a boarding school. Also, if Freddie is studying in Bath in southern England, that is quite far from where Downton is supposed to be in Yorkshire, so he would be highly unlikely to live there and commute to college. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 Dec 2012 3:54 PM Pacific
Ok. On a side note: I believe it's the Series 1 press pack that confirms Rosamund is Robert's ONLY sibling - that and Isobel and Violet's words in Episode 3.08 too.
Surely, given the perillous situation of Downton, Mary would have said if Harold had someone to succeed him; she didn't. She just said "Mama and Uncle Harold"; this to me, means Harold has NO children. So, as Freddie is a cousin, the ONLY solution - since we're assuming he's a first cousin (there's no other possible relations, since the 2012 Christmas Special shows Rose is the ONLY child of the Flintshire's) - is that he is Rosamund's son. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:07, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
Tenuous, but you could add to the notes that Freddie is likely Rosamund's son based on no evidence that Harold has children and that Cora has only Harold for a sibling. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 Dec 2012 4:22 PM Pacific
Take a look at the page: tell me if that's alright? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:42, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
Fill in the series # and episode # in the ref and it will be good. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 Dec 2012 4:48 PM Pacific
Filled in. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:08, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Also, should I add "Rosamund Painswick", "Marmaduke Painswick", "Cyril Painswick", "Lavinia Painswick", "Lavinia's Husband", "Violet" and "The 6th Earl" into Freddie's family infobox?HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:08, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Relatives should only be put into the infobox when a character's family has been definitively established. Otherwise, you have to go about undoing stuff when you find out you're wrong. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 Dec 2012 5:33 PM Pacific
Ok. Thanks anyway. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:44, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

==Coding help.==
Hello, I wondered if you could help me. I noticed that when you edit the cast section on the Downton Abbey (Programme) page, you are taken to the cast page to do so. Does this means that if anyone edits the cast page it automatically appears in the cast section of the Downton Abbey (Programme) page? If so could you tell me the code/how you do this if that's not too much trouble? I just think it's a really niffty thing and it'd be useful to know how to do for another wiki that I've joined. Bluebellanon (talk) 12:37, December 13, 2012 (UTC)

==Series 3, Christmas Special==
Going from the CS picture of Carson with little Sybil that has been leaked, I think it possible that the CS is set is September 1921 instead of 1920. It is speculation and not directly confirmed, so would you note that on the page?

My reasoning is as follows: Sybil was born somwhere around June/July/August 1920, apparently. If the CS was set that September she would only be, at most, three months old. In the picture with Carson, she looks more like she's a year old. Also the Radio Times article from November 22 and the Press Release on SpoilerTV from last week, while they do confrim that the CS is set in September, no specific mention is made of the year.

However, if you think that the year should be removed from the page until the CS airs then I will accept it. Dragonrider2 (talk) 14:39, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

You can always add a section called "Speculation" and put your speculations there. If they turn out to be true you could move them into the "Notes" section or other parts of the article. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 14 Dec 2012 8:48 AM Pacific

== Molesley's name ==
The Chronicles of Downton Abbey states his name is Alfred, yet his page says "Joseph"; can I change it because The Chronicles of Downton Abbey comes above everything (except the show, which hasn't said a name and Jullian Fellowes himself.) HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:28, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
:Make a citation with the page number and a fragment from the book where it says his name from the The Chronicles of Downton Abbey and you can change it. The Joseph appears to come only from IMDB which is not a fully reliable source. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 14 Dec 2012 2:51 PM Pacific

Woot! Thanks! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 07:05, December 15, 2012 (UTC)
If this was a real person, it would be either Joseph or Alfred. But it's a TV series that makes this small mistakes. I don't believe it's a clear cut as just being Alfred. The person who actually wrote the sited sourced doesn't actually know if it's Alfred so think that ought to be given some weight (http://twitter.com/jessicafellowes/status/247074942137552897). Also nowhere on any part of ITV.com is he called Alfred, but ITV.com does credit Kevin Doyle as Joseph Molesley (www.itv.com/documents/doc/ScottBailey2.doc). Also no cast interview ever call him Alfred Molesley, but Siobhan Finneran does call him Joseph Molesley. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/4616666/Downton-Abbey-star-Siobhan-Finneran-says-she-loves-playing-Sarah-OBrien.html) Plus it's been taken down, Kevin Doyle's agent's company's website had him as Joseph Molesley. The South African broadcaster of DA has him as Joseph Molesley (http://www.tvsa.co.za/showinfo.asp?showid=5435). Again one source stating Alfred isn't that clear cut. CestWhat (talk) 06:09, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
All I know is all the sources you just dug up weren't in the article, so if you want to add them to the article, that's fine. However, none of the sources you named has actually been touched by Julian Fellowes where as The Chronicles... at least had him involved. Jessica's tweet does not support Joseph or Alfred. The two other sources come from secondary sources. I will say Jessica's tweet makes me think she may have had the book ghost-written and she is less trustworthy because of her ignorance.
:::Feel free to add the controversy to the article, but it stays Alfred Molesley until you can get a better contravening source. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 16 Dec 2012 4:49 PM Pacific

Can you check this?Edit

The image enclosed states that the Christmas Special, set in September 1921 "starts nine months after we last saw the Crawleys and their staff, still grieving Sybil's death." (I've underlined it in the image included here Fandyllic for Wiki - the image is this webpage: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2251678/Downton-Abbey-Christmas-Special-A-racy-new-maid-simmering-tension-Matthew-Lady-Mary.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

If I've read it right, it's saying that the Crawleys -in September 1921 - are still mourning Sybil nine months after her death. So... that means Sybil was born in JANUARY 1921 (as that is NINE MONTHS BEFORE September 1921). I've added it to both pages as a reference, but thought I'd ask here too.

Do you agree--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:50, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's what the article says. It says: "The episode starts nine months after we last saw the Crawleys and their staff, still grieving Sybil's death." I read that as meaning that the Christmas Special is set 9 months after series 3 ended, not nine months after Sybil died. Sybil died in episode 3.05 - there are 3 more episodes after that one and we don't know exactly how much time passed in the meantime. --Bluebellanon (talk) 01:13, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
It's a few weeks, I think; baby Sybbie is still in blankets and a pram. Episode 3.06 starts after Sybil's funeral - that might have been HOURS later, as the men come to take her body at the end of episode 3.05. I thought I'd ask Fandyllic anyway - his word is law. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:19, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Babies are in prams for more than a few weeks, that's evidence of nothing. Beside which, your reasoning is still only calculation. And it's calculation using a secondary source. Bluebellanon (talk) 01:24, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
We have to use secondary sources, I'm afraid. There's no primary source since apart from Episode 3.01 we get no indication of how long there is between episodes. Apart from 2 small hints. Mary and Matthew were on their honeymoon for two months (Martha says "two months") and a month later, Edith is jilted at the altar (she says: "I can have it all prepared in a month.)
::::: I know babies are in a pram for more than a few weeks, but Sybil's body is taken in Episode 3.05 and the funeral is just before Episode 3.06 and the men arrived at the end of Episode 3.05 - that means there's days (maybe a week, two at most) between the episodes. Whatever the case, I'm going by Fandyllic's judgement. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:31, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
My point was that using calculation is not a good reference - and it's especially not a good reference when it's using a secondary source. Bluebellanon (talk) 01:42, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
I didn't disagreee with you - I was merely stating that we have no idea, except for a few dates where we HAVE to use calculation, to know when Series 3 is set (apart from it being AFTER Spring 1920, as that is when Series 3 Episode 1 is). HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:44, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
We don't have to use calculation. If you agree that using calculation is a bad reference then why do you do it? If we don't know something for definite then saying nothing is preferable. Bluebellanon (talk) 01:47, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
We want to be accurate, on this wiki, do we not? So, the ONLY way to do this - on occasions where no dates are provided on screen - is to use secondary sources and calculations from the words people say on screen. There's NO OTHER OPTIONS in those cases. This is one of those cases. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:49, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
But but . . . the whole point of not using calculation is that it's not exactly accurate. There is another option, and that is not to give out information that may be incorrect. Saying nothing and not giving a date has the advantage of being completely accurate. I just- *gives up and goes off to have a drink* Bluebellanon (talk) 01:57, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but not giving dates leads to arguments - calculation provides the dates (when there are no on screen titles) by using information said on screen - and prevents any arguments by settling the fact. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:00, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Oh yes. Look at us right now. Avoiding arguments. I can see what you mean. It works so well. That's what we're doing right now alright, avoiding arguments.
:::::: But the thing is, it feels like what you want to do is settle the fact forever in your favour - that you want your pov, your opinion, to win. This is a community wikia. When dates are in question people should be able to decide for themselves when they think a thing is set using the information given in the show - that's if they even think it is important at all. Giving dates that are hotly debated doesn't do that. And it in no way shape or form avoids arguments. If anything it creates more. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:07, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
The only arguments I usually have are when You - or CestWhat - remove the references I've added by what we're able to work out from a) what we can SEE on screen, b) what we're able to work out (dates, ages, etc) and c) from what we get from other references, such as the one I began this section with. I have NO other arguments apart from that. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:11, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Given the low number of active members at this wikia, the fact that you have regular issues with two of them hardly speaks highly of yourself. I'm also pretty sure that other people disagree with some of your edits at times.
::: And we're also back to the fact that calculation is not a good reference. You shouldn't be using anything you've "worked out" as a reference. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:17, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Other people disagree yes, but they discuss rationally (rather than creating edit wars, like you and CestWhat do) when changing/disagreeing with things I write.
:: And, as I have said ONE BAJILION times before - sometimes YOU HAVE TO USE THINGS YOU'VE "WORKED OUT" AS A REFERENCE BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER POSIBILITIES.
:: Since you are, frankly, being an incorrigible little *ahem*, I shall be going to bed, and leaving you for tonight. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:23, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
I think other people disagree and then give up talking to you in the face of your ability to talk in circles, not listen to points that are made to you again and again, and the way you ignore certain things to suit yourself. Talking to you is exhausting. The only difference is that I'm not going to let you talk me down the way you do everyone else. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:31, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Then consider yourself on the same terms with me as CestWhat. Non speaking. He and I have an agreement now - I don't meddle with his, and he doesn't meddle with mine (I'm still waiting for an apology from him too) so we're able to be civil. It seems we've ended up the same way. Without the "civil" part, that is. Bext time, just agree with me, it's easier. And, this wasn't even directed at you - it was directed at Fandyllic! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:38, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to just agree with you to avoid you arguing with me. That's kind of my whole point. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:42, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Yet, you choosing to "disagree" with me, caused this argument. Next time, don't intefere with my things posted on walls that are not yours. Ok? I won't have to officially strike you onto my "People I Am No Longer Civil With" list, if you agree with me. Pathetic, but I've provided references many times, asked for stuff not to be removed until I can ask Fandyllic about it (as his word is law here) but you STILL kept removing it. It makes you, officially, just as bad. Got it? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:47, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
:::::::That's not how a community works, hun. In a community everyone gets a say. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:55, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Never disagreed with that. But when an edit war starts (which it had with you and me) the person who started the edit war - in this case you, by removing the bit on "Mrs Branson" should have no right to speak for the rest of their tenure on the wiki. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:59, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
You do realise that an edit war takes two people right?
:::::::::I had a perfectly valid reason for removing that information and stated it. More than once. Bluebellanon (talk) 03:08, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and though I can see WHY you removed it, I stated that I would ask Fandyllic for his opinion as he is ADMIN; thus, in removing it, even after I did the whole < ! - - - please do not remove this until Fandyllic has stated whether it deserves to be here - - - > bit, makes YOU in the wrong and me in the right by ADDING IT BACK IN. See? If you disagree, you're just arguing for arguments sake. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:16, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's no winning against "logic" like that is there. Bluebellanon (talk) 03:24, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
No. No, there isn't. Glad you see it my way. For once. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:26, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Ugh. I will try to read all this later. ...and then archive it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 21 Dec 2012 9:35 PM Pacific

I'm sorry, HPR, but you're way off base in using that article for Sybil's death date. You're forgetting that she was already pregnant in December 1919. The only scenario where that date could possibly work is if she had a miscarriage before returning to Downton in 3x01 and later became pregnant with little Sybil - which is clearly not the case. Nine months backwards doesn't necessarily mean January in any case, more like December. I don't trust the Daily Mail anyway since 3x08 in clearly set in spring or summer. Dragonrider2 (talk) 17:14, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dragonrider2 and Bluebellanon here, sorry. As you said HarryPotterRules1, "We want to be accurate, on this wiki, do we not?" With that in mind, using secondary sources and calculated dates does not increase the accuracy of the wiki. I will edit the Sybbie page so that the calculation is still part of the page and adds info, but does not mislead users into thinking the date is well established. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 22 Dec 2012 10:29 AM Pacific
I'm confused by having (b. January 1921) at all even with the "or before" qualifier. It's on the show itself that Cora learns from Sybil that she's pregnant which she got in December 1919. Plus the Cora tells Robert that Sybil's pregnancy was probably part of the reason she declined to come to Downton Abbey for Christmas which shows Cora thinks knew she was pregnant for some time before she wrote to her. Sybil would have to be at least a month to three months pregnant to know (no home pregnancy test in those days). There's no way at all she'd be born in January 1921.CestWhat (talk) 19:29, December 22, 2012 (UTC)


Well, adjust the article then with that information. I was never definitively attached to Jan 1921. However, citations for when Sybil reports her pregnancy would help bolster the change. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 22 Dec 2012 1:53 PM Pacific
I am glad we're getting somewhere (apart from the blatent favouritism between you three, of course). I think the bit about Sybbie's birthdate - and the article I found - should remain, with, as Fandyllic suggested, the note bit added in. It shows that we have a) done our research and b) are not trying to confuse people. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:54, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

==2012 Christmas Special==
In the 2012 Christmas Special, Susan says that Violet is "my mother's sister"; does this mean we can add a piece into NOTES on Roberta's page stating that it is LIKELY that she is Susan's mother; also, does this mean we can CONFIRM Roberta "married a Gordon", as neither Susan nor Violet say anything about other siblings of Violet. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:30, December 25, 2012 (UTC)

We don't know definitively how many brothers and sisters Violet has or had, but it is likely that Roberta is Susan's mother until we find out about another sister. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Dec 2012 1:32 PM Pacific

==Sybbie's Birthdate==
Sorry for two messages in one day (the other one is directly above this if you haven't already seen it) but I want your opinion on something.

I think Sybbie's birthdate can also be narrowed down further to specific months - namely between April and July 1920 - because Sybil had to be between one and four months pregnant:

If Sybil was:
*Four months pregnant in December 1919 then Sybbie was born in April.
*Three months pregnant in December 1919 then Sybbie was born in May.
*Two months pregnant in December 1919 then Sybbie was born in June.
*One months pregnant in December 1919 then Sybbie was born in July.

These are the only dates that can fit, as Sybil could not be any further along in her pregnancy; Episode 3.01 is set in SPRING 1920, and Mary and Matthew's honeymoon was two months longa, making Sybil at least six months along, this, combined with Edith saying she could her the wedding of her and Sir Anthony Strallan ready in "a month" leaves a matter of two months - in which Episode 3.04 and the gap in between that episode and Episode 3.05 - occur; we know there is a big gap, as in Episode 3.04 Sybil is barely showing and in Episode 3.05 she is about to have Sybbie.

Could you edit this into somekind of "NOTE" to go into the "NOTES" section - if you agree, that is. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:54, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

When I get time, I will work on it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Dec 2012 1:26 PM Pacific

=== Sybbie's Birthdate notes ===
* a Mary says that no-one could spend "two months in that heat" thus stating that her honeymoon was two months long.

==Hello!==
I think we may have a troll: http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.145.129.249 Some things they alter seem goood edits and others just seem to be silly jokes/rudeness so I'm not sure if I'm over reacting or not. I'm not sure if there is a way to ban ip addresses but thought I'd mention it. Perhaps if it gets worse we could protect the pages they seem to keep going back to? Isn't there a way to restrict editing to logged in users?

Also, have you seen the replies to this page? http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:What_is_canon_and_good_citations/references?t=20121223024656 I wouldn't mind knowing if we can just delete things that have been established - by whatever process is proper - to be innaccurate/misleading/bad reference/speculation and if not why not. Thanks. Bluebellanon (talk) 23:19, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen some of the recent pages that have been created? Specifically: Reginald Crawley's Manchester House, Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham's Father, Gordon, Rosamund and Marmaduke's House On Eaton Square, James MacClare, Earl of Newtonmore, Lady Annabelle's Husband and Lady Annabelle. Most of these are either off screen characters or contain dates that are speculative and derived/calculated from passing mentions.
Although I'd like to correct some of this or mark the pages for deletion, I don't feel there's any point as HPR1 will just put back the information or remove the markers for deletion as they have been doing consistently in the past.
What should be done? It's just ridiculous. I enjoy taking part in this wikia, I enjoy making edits and helping improving the place - but I want to get away from arguing with one specific user. Yes, some of it was probably my fault for letting myself get dragged into arguments when they are unable to change or see/admit points of view than their own. But do we have to carry on like this indefinitely?
I feel like there is no point to making changes to their edits as they just change them back and make it into a huge argument. But on the other hand, this just means that their tactic of being argumentative/unchangeable has worked. Which doesn't seem fair.
Sorry to lay all this at your feet when I know you didn't even want the job, but someone has to sort this out. This wikia is becoming a place I'm not sure I want to visit anymore. Is that the impression you want to leave people with? --Bluebellanon (talk) 15:07, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
It is pretty awful. Especially a central characters have maybe two paragraphs written up about then but any Crawley relations get his or her own article. I get that it's different with the Crawley. If Mrs. Hughes is mentioned to have a sister, one can just put it on her article. But if Mary mentions a relative, that relative is also related to Edith, Sybil, her parents, etc... and seems a bit much to mention him or her on every single article. Still, it isn't helpful to somebody reading here. Maybe start "List" article where all these Crawley one-line-of-dialogue mentions can go? CestWhat (talk) 17:42, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
I will look through these pages... Try not to be too free with the delete tags unless there is no basis for the article at all. Deductive speculations are not all bad. HPR1 is kind of crazy about the relatives thing and I do plan to rename most of the character pages at some point to comply with this forum post. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 9:45 AM Pacific
Please do fill out a List of minor off screen characters. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 9:47 AM Pacific
I was thinking more of a List of Crawley relatives and if it's a major character like Rose, just have a see Main Article. And while we are at it, maybe a list of servant relations since beyond the himing and hawing about insignificance or speculation or inaccuracy, something that irritated me about these HRP relative article was majority was solely Grantham relatives rather then servants (not that's trying to be a class warrior about it).
Also inaccuracy is not the sole reason for deletion (not at least nominating an article for deletion). Redundancy should be valid ie Mr Bromidge's mother just repeats exactly what in the article for Mr Bromidge. 18:01, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
I think you've put your finger on one of the reasons why these types of articles bug me, CestWhat - the difference between the focus on the upper and lower classes. I mean poor Mr Carson hardly has any page at all and as you say, every Crawley relative mentioned via one throwaway line gets their own page.
But to go back to the point, would this List of minor off screen characters be replacing them having individual pages? If so I'm in favour, but I don't mind if it's for all off screen characters or only Crawley relatives.
I also agree that redundant articles should be deleted and I LOVE the renaming the character pages idea. Listing the entire title of characters bugs the hell out of me, it's so pointless and seems to be another way of placing upper class characters above the lower - marking them out as different, special and seperate and it really has no place in a wikia. WE don't live in the past. Thank god. /rant 21:40, December 27, 2012 (UTC)Bluebellanon (talk)
Once again, CestWhat IMMEDIATELY shoots me down (there is a reason I dislike him - that is it). I won't even bother defending my actions - you'll all just gang up on me anyway. Do whatever the hell you like - I don't care anymore. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:45, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
All we're doing is discussing what we think would be beneficial changes to the wikia. Bluebellanon (talk) 21:56, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
In the words of Vera Bates "As if". HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:58, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
I'm opposed to List of Crawley relatives, since it is too vague. List of off screen Crawley relatives would be better. However, I think there is a general lack of trying to work together on this wiki, but we are making progress. The more we polarize, the worse it will get. If you see something you don't like and it follows the general rules we've talked about (originally sourced info can stay in the main article, but valid deduction and speculation needs to go in a properly labelled section), please make the change. However, if you just want to remove something because you have some exclusionist agenda, I won't support it. HPR1 has gone to a great deal of effort to try to work within a system and should be recognized for that effort.
::::::::HPR1's fanatical devotion to the subject may go off track (adding titles to character articles unnecessarily and overblown listings of relatives), but the value of having so much content will pay off. If we can mold all the contributions into a useful whole, we can make this wiki THE definitive info source.
::::::::Division only leads to disaster. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 2:30 PM Pacific
Finally, someone on my side. I am willing to work with anyone on this wiki who is willing to work with me - CestWhat is not one of those people (still not had that apology, btw); if you were to look at all the edits CestWhat has made since I arrived, you will find that 99.999999999999999999 (to the power of infinity)% of them are cancelling (or altering) the changes I have made to suit him. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:38, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
Would the List of minor off screen characters page be replacing the individual pages so that they would eventually be deleted, or would it be in addition to them? Bluebellanon (talk) 22:42, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
Improving them, most likely - as minor as the characters are, they are still characters: thus that warrants them a page: it'd just be a list of them all in one place to make it easier to find them. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:57, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to differ then, as I feel that them being only mentioned in the show and not actual appearing characters means that they don't warrant their own individual page. Bluebellanon (talk) 23:06, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Bluebellanon here. Unless a minor offscreen character is mentioned more than 3 times or so, they would unlikely warrant a full article. Some exceptions would be if a major character had a detailed monologue or discussion about an off screen character. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 4:11 PM Pacific
That's the point - Cora's brother Harold is a "minor off screen character" but could appear on screen; we know he's alive as of 1920, Martha's words confirm that, so if his page is deleted and stuck into the "minor off screen characters" page, it would have to be re-created if he did appear on the show - it's best to leave the actual pages as well: we do not know if Violet's sister, Roberta, is dead - she could easily show up next series (it's highly unlikely, but she still could), thus the page needs to remain. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:17, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
They could appear on screen but they also might not (and most probably wont). If they do appear we can easily make them a page. If they don't we've got countless pointless pages on the wikia when all off screen characters could be neatly contained on one page. Bluebellanon (talk) 23:41, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
While I can see that is a good idea, we cannot do it until the show is done as an OFFSCREEN character now, may become an on screen character - that just makes it a waste of time delete premade pages and remaking then when the character appears. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:44, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry HarryPotterRules1, deleting pages is not a waste of time if they misrepresent the importance of the character to the show and the story. I don't want this to get like Wikipedia with Star Wars characters where because a few fanatical editors want to raise the importance of minor characters, they get content out of proportion to their appearance in the show.
::For now most pages for minor characters will remain, but if a listing in single page of a paragraph covers their involvement in the show, their individual page will get deleted. Lists of relatives do not count as meaningful content. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 4:11 PM Pacific
Thank you. In that case I'll start on the page. Should it be "List of minor off screen characters" or "List of off screen Crawley relatives"? Personally I think the first is more inclusive. Bluebellanon (talk) 00:20, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
List of minor off screen characters to begin with. If the Crawley folks part of the list gets too big we can make List of off screen Crawley relatives and point to it. Please leave the page deletion to me. Use the {{delete}} template at the top, if you think an article should be deleted.
:::::HarryPotterRules1, please do not remove {{delete}} tags. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 4:23 PM Pacific
Once again, I am outnumbered - you, Fandyllic, are meant to be unbiased: ever since becoming admind you have sided with me on THREE occasions - three. No more, no less. As for deleting the {{delete}} tags, some of them, I believe, do not belong there, which is WHY they are being deleted. Naturally of course CestWhat (King of the F***s) won't agree, and nor will Bluebellanon (Prince/Princess of the F***s). I can see, given your words, that you definitely don't. Why I even both writing stuff on this wiki, I really don't know, because either you, CestWhat or Bluebellanon will just remove it. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:27, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
With that kind of attitude, you can count yourself lucky that I ever side with you. You claim I'm biased whenever you don't get your way. I'm used to it, but it does get tiresome. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 4:46 PM Pacific
Done! I'll be refering to the Category:Off-screen_characters for characters to place there.
:::::Also, I don't think I've done or said anything that warrants being sworn at and called names. Bluebellanon (talk) 00:38, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to point out, that ultimately, List of minor off screen characters will represent a consolidation of existing info and very little actual removal. If one were to think a bit before reacting, one might see this. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 4:48 PM Pacific

As it happens, I was thinking: I was thinking how tired I am of the three of you being biased against me and ganging up on me to remove information that you, I and EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS EVER WATCHED THE SHOW, knows to be correct.
That is why I am in a very fowl mood. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:52, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

But the information wont be removed, it'll be moved. --Bluebellanon (talk) 00:54, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
At least you're not in a foul mood. ;-) -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 4:56 PM Pacific

Moved, Blueballon, is fine - as long as it's not removed.
Don't try and be funny, Fandyllic, for in my present mood it just makes me want to hit you and is very unbecoming of an admin. Got that? Yes? No?
No, tough shit.
Yes, good. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:01, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Minor Character ListEdit


Just thinking instead of one major long list (there a lot of these characters), perhaps organize them a bit more ie list of servants or list of Crawley relatives or list of Downton villagers. Just so it isn't as confusing.CestWhat (talk) 02:20, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this, but first let's actually get all of the minor characters in ONE PLACE before we start dividing them up. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:21, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

It's easy to make sections with characters being subsections. I'll edit the page if necessary to give an example of how it could be done when more characters get on to it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 7:27 PM Pacific
I've added a few new subsections to the minor off screen character page - hopefully this makes it a bit easier to navigate. Bluebellanon (talk) 13:35, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

==Not sure if you've seen this==
Hello, I wondered if you had seen this page and some of the language (swearing shouting and verging on threatening) that HPR1 uses here: http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/Mister_Gordon?action=history

I wouldn't normally butt into things like this where I haven't been involved in the specific argument but I don't know if you regularly check other pages or recent activity and I just think HPR1's attitude and behaviour is unacceptable. I'm by no means whiter than white and probably argue with them at times when I should let things drop, but I never resort to bad language, shouting, or threats - and I haven't seen that from anyone else here either. As a community I think we should perhaps set some rules for how we interact with each other if none exist, as I feel this is unacceptable and looks very bad for anybody new coming to the wikia. Bluebellanon (talk) 12:55, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

As usually CestWhat and HPR1 are edit warring. I will likely ban them both for a month to cool them down. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Dec 2012 8:55 AM Pacific


To be honest, I think swearing and shouting and saying things like "Change it, again, and I will sorely make you regret it!" are a bit more serious than simply edit warring. Especially when HPR1 has a history of such behaviour and has made a threat in the past. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:05, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
I know, in this case, that I was in the right with my edits. Robert has one maternal aunt - James Crawley's mother - so Gordon must have been married to a maternal aunt, namely a sibling of Violet: whether it's Roberta or not and whether or not he is Susan's father is totally unknown, I admit to that bit; I never stated they were her parents. CestWhat - as usual - disagrees with the fact that Gordon has to be a maternal uncle by marriage; we know there's no other way. And, like before, I had explained to CestWhat - you can see my explaination on the talk page of CestWhat - but was ignored, so the way I acted was the only other option left as you weren't here at the time Fandyllic, and the pages were all being moved.
:Also, Bluebellanon, you are not an Admin; it's not your job to inform Fandyllic as to what it going on - Fandyllic already does there job well enough and does not need your help. Consider this action against me as the second strike on the "people I do not like" box against you. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:41, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
What I'm concerned about isn't your edit - it's your attitude, your bad language and the line that verges on a threat. Yes, this is a small example of it, but you're like this quite often when in disagreement with anyone. There's no excuse for this, I don't care what anyone else does, swearing and shouting and threatening language is not acceptable. I'm not an admin no, but as a member of this community I'm entitled to bring to an admin's attention anything that concerns and worries me. Bluebellanon (talk) 03:04, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
"entitled to bring to an admin's attention anything that concerns and worries me." Oh? Maybe I should find EVERY SINGLE edit that you and CestWhat have made to MY correct information? Hmm? That "concerns and worries" me since it's deliberately done, and it's only ever my information.
:::Do not forget, I can chuck your words back in your face - since I cannot actually hit you, I have no idea where you are, after all - just as easily as you can. Don't test me. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:09, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
"Since I cannot actually hit you" - way to prove my point for me, HPR1.
:::::You're more than welcome to try and find an example of me being abusive, threatening or swearing. Bluebellanon (talk) 03:14, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
I won't find any of those, but I will find several cases of deliberate removal of information where you've gone "Oh, HPR1 edited that, it must be wrong. REMOVE!" - I can find many cases of that from you and CestWhat. You're not in the clear, dear. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:31, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think that telling someone you'd like to hit them if you knew where they were compares to edits on a wikia??? Bluebellanon (talk) 03:33, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
In this case, yes. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:48, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

==Help with something==
Since I want to avoid an edit war with Bluebellanon (which will, naturally, occur if I make the changes without asking you) I trhought I'd ask you.

The edits to Rose MacClare, Susan and Hugh all have the references for their names taken out. As it happens we NEED those references as Susan and Hugh are, in the 2012 special called "Shrimpie Flintshire" and "Susan Flintshire" in the credits, and Rose's surname is never uttered onscreen, so could you please RE ADD the references for their names, as they are needed. Bluebellanon will just ignore me and remove them if I do it. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:31, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
I will take a look, but no promises. I'm getting annoyed that people can't seem to follow instructions (move refs to notes rather than just removal). -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Dec 2012 6:42 PM Pacific
The reason I removed them was that I thought they were only there because people were disputing their name before they became established cast members. Now that they are the references seemed a bit surplus to requirements. Also, could you not make assumptions on how I'm going to behave please, HPR1. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:43, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Fandyllic.
:::::Bluebellanon - I know you well enough to state what you will, most likely, do. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:50, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
The reason for preserving info, even if it doesn't belong as a reference is that it is still useful background and helps the reader if it is presented in its proper context. Removing the info prevents it from being of value and basically places your judgement as supreme without even allowing other users to comment (because the info is effectively gone to the novice reader). -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Dec 2012 6:56 PM Pacific
Okay, it future I'll move things like that rather than deleting. Sorry about that. --Bluebellanon (talk) 02:59, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
If you'll allow me to do this, but "Ha ha ha ha ha! You got in trouble!" (for once!) Woot! For once, I was right and the info needed to be there. In. Your. Face! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:10, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
(facepalm) -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Dec 2012 8:17 PM Pacific
That would look better if there was a smiley to do the facepalm. But, I was happy, so was allowed to gloat... for once. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:49, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

==Concerned==
Can I ask what is going to be done about HPR1's words to me last night, further up this page?

"Do not forget, I can chuck your words back in your face - since I cannot actually hit you, I have no idea where you are, after all - just as easily as you can. Don't test me."

Please don't tell me that you think - as HPR1 seems to do - that threatening language compares to people making edits here. I don't come here to be told that if someone knew where I was they'd be hitting me.

I don't make threats, I don't shout, I don't swear. If that is actually acceptable behaviour around here I'm sure I can manage to adjust my language accordingly.

HPR1 threatened someone before and they haven't changed - they don't even seem to think what they did was wrong. Please, please tell me that some action is going to be taken on this, it's beginning to feel like they can say anything and all you'll concentrate on is the edits. Bluebellanon (talk) 10:57, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Yup sorry. I will apply a 1 week ban and see if he learns his lesson. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Dec 2012 10:00 AM Pacific
See User_talk:HarryPotterRules1#You.27ve_been_blocked_for_1_week. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Dec 2012 10:06 AM Pacific
Wow, thanks so much. That was quick! I've been seconded guessing myself so much since that happened. Wondering if I was over reacting or misinterpreting, so it's nice to be backed up in this. Hopefully, they 'll change their language/behaviour a bit after this, but I won't be holding my breath. Bluebellanon (talk) 20:07, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

==Cora's Misscarriage==
I was just wondering how we should deal with this page: Cora's Miscarriage? I know the page was originally created as a character page but I don't think it really fits on the List of minor off screen characters page. Perhaps it would be better to put the information that is currently on the page into Cora's and Roberts page and the page for the episode in question before deleting the page? I'm not sure that the issue warrants a page of it's own. Thought I'd better ask before I did anything as it seemed like a big change. Bluebellanon (talk) 12:40, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

That page should just be a section on Cora's page. Not sure it even needs to be on Robert's. If you want to move it and tag the page for delete, go ahead. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 31 Dec 2012 9:06 AM Pacific
Thanks. I've moved it to Cora's page, the Episode in question already had the info. Bluebellanon (talk) 22:48, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.